type_in_alert

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core interaction and that the dialog is accepted afterward, which is useful. However, it does not explain timeout behavior, what happens if no prompt appears, or any error/edge-case handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and primary behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the core purpose is well covered, but the timeout parameter is left entirely unexplained. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail about waiting behavior or failure conditions would make this fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It clarifies that text is what gets typed, but it says nothing about the timeout parameter, its unit, or how it affects the operation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action—typing text into a JavaScript prompt dialog—and explicitly includes the follow-up accept action. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like type_text, accept_alert, and dismiss_alert, which handle different parts of the interaction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: use this when interacting with a JavaScript prompt dialog that requires textual input. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.